Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. C.L., 2026 ONCJ 290

WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

This is a case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, (being Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87.—(7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication.— Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order,

(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.

(8) Prohibition re identifying child.— No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.

(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged.— The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.

142.—(3) Offences re publication.— A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. C.L., 2026 ONCJ 290

DATE: May 25, 2026

COURT FILE NO. 20-40483-04

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Katie Skinner, for the APPLICANT

APPLICANT

• and –

C.L.

Aron David for the RESPONDENT MOTHER

RESPONDENT MOTHER

• and -

C.T.

Lauren Israel for the RESPONDENT FATHER

RESPONDENT FATHER

Catherine Belanger, for the OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER, on behalf of the Middle Children, K.T. and A. T.

Helen Miller for the OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER, on behalf of the Oldest Child, S.

HEARD: April 22, May 6 and May 7, 2026

JUSTICE J. HARRIS

PART ONE - INTRODUCTION AND ISSUES

1The Children's Aid Society of Toronto (“CAST”) sought a temporary order placing two Children, aged 7 (“A.T.”), and aged 10 (“K.T.”, collectively with A.T., the “Middle Children”) with the Father and his Current Partner, C.H. (“Current Partner”), under a temporary supervision order with terms and conditions.

2The court ordered the Middle Children into the temporary care and custody of the CAST with written reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

PART TWO - POSITION OF THE PARTIES

3The CAST, the Father, and the OCL for the Middle Children consented to the supervision order sought by the CAST. The parties argued that the Father is a “work in progress” but his Current Partner is highly supportive and mitigates risk sufficiently for a supervision order to address the protection concerns.

4The Mother initially opposed, but ultimately, she consented to, the order sought by the CAST. The Mother recognized her own limitations, as well as the serious protection concerns related to the Father; however, she wanted the Middle Children to remain within their family.

5The OCL for the Middle Children acknowledged that her clients were not doing well. She submitted that “we have to acknowledge what is organic to the children themselves, what are their issues. And they are challenging children”. The OCL for the Middle Children submitted that the court needed to consider the negatives for the Middle Children coming into foster care, and that there are “far more unknowns and possible bad effects on the children, particularly [K.T.] from coming into care”. The OCL indicated that foster care is not a panacea.

6The OCL for the Older Child, (“S.P.”) took no position.

7On the first return date of the motion, the court advised that it was considering ordering the Middle Children in the temporary care of the CAST and recommended that the CAST obtain placement.

8The court very reluctantly granted the orders sought by the CAST on a temporary, temporary without prejudice basis to permit the parties to file further evidence to address the court’s concerns and to allow appropriate time for the court to review the hundreds of pages that were filed on the same day of the motion, and the historic records that had not been digitized in the court file and were not available for the court’s review at the time the motion was first heard.

9When the motion returned, the Father’s Current Partner was represented initially by duty counsel on May 6, 2026, and then had retained counsel on May 7, 2026.

PART THREE - EVIDENCE

10The CAST relied on the following evidence:

1. The Affidavits of Taia Giecko, affirmed March 31, 2026, April 20, 2026, May 4, 2026, and May 9, 2026.
2. The Affidavits of Joelle Williams, sworn July 15, 2020, July 9, 2021, December 14, 2021, and December 12, 2022.
3. The Affidavit of Leslie Amendola, sworn December 13, 2024.
4. Three Statements of Agreed Facts dated December 14, 2020, June 28, 2021, and March 11, 2024.

11The CAST ongoing worker, Taia Giecko, also provided viva voce evidence at the motion.

12The Father relied on the following evidence:

1. The Father’s affidavits sworn April 2, 2026, and May 5, 2026.
2. The Affidavit of the Father’s Current Partner, sworn April 2, 2026.

13The Mother relied on her affidavit sworn April 16, 2026.

14The OCL for the Middle Children did not file evidence.

15The OCL for the Older Child, not subject to the motion, brought to the court’s attention, on April 22, 2026, 574 pages of police records that were previously obtained by the CAST, which the court reviewed.

16The court also reviewed:

[a] The Statement of Agreed Facts, filed June 20, 2023. [b] The Current Partner’s Form 35.1 Affidavit (decision-making responsibility, parenting time, contact) and Form 35.1A Affidavit (child protection information) filed in her domestic proceeding.

PART FOUR - FACTS AND LITIGATION BACKGROUND

17The Mother has five children:

[a] The Mother’s eldest Child is in the care of her maternal grandmother. [b] The Older Child, S.P., is currently in foster care. [c] The 10-year-old, K.T. who is the focus of this motion. [d] The 8-year-old, A.T. who is also the focus of this motion. [e] The Youngest Child, C.L., is currently with the Mother on a supervision order.

18The Middle Children, K.T. and A.T. share the same father, C.T. (the “Father”).

19The Father also has five children. Two of the Father’s older children reside with their maternal grandmother, and the third child was made a Crown Ward and placed through adoption through Native Child and Family Services (“NCFS”). The two remaining children are the Middle Children.

20The Parents and the Children do not identify as First Nations, Inuit, and Métis.

21All of the Father’s children have been removed from his care either on a permanent or temporary basis.

The Parties’ Previous Child Protection Concerns

22The protection concerns related to the Mother are chronic and longstanding, and include:

[a] substance misuse, including the use of crystal meth, [b] mental health concerns, [c] intimate partner violence, [d] the state of her home, [e] the failure to attend to the children’s basic needs including food and medical care and school attendance, [f] inability to control lice infestations, [g] failure to follow supervision terms, [h] failure to act protectively and allowed the Youngest Child’s father, a convicted sexual offender, to have ongoing unsupervised contact with the children, despite criminal conditions and a supervision order that included conditions he have no contact, and [i] failure to act protectively and permitted the Father to have contact with the Children when he had a no contact order resulting from allegations of sexual assault and sexual interference of a child.

23The protection concerns related to the Father are chronic and longstanding, and include:

[a] serious mental health concerns, [b] the Father not being currently under the care of a psychiatrist but reports that he is in the process of scheduling an appointment with a new psychiatrist, “Dr. Nasu” and the Father is reportedly prescribed 20 mg of escitalopram, 5 mg of aripiprazole and 150 mg of Zyban, [c] repeated non-compliance with his prescribed medication, [d] intimate partner violence against his mother, sister, the Children’s maternal grandfather and the Mother and his older Children’s mothers, [e] allegations of sexual assault and sexual interference related to a child, which were verified by NCFS, [f] allegations of physical violence and inappropriate physical discipline against his Children, [g] current criminal charges related to assaulting the Older Child as well as an outstanding criminal charge related to his mother of his older children, [h] multiple criminal convictions of violence, primarily but not exclusively against women, including pregnant women, [i] failure to abide by criminal conditions, [j] substance misuse and intoxication, [k] the state of his home, [l] inability to address a lice infestation, and [m] anger management issues.

24The protection concerns related to the Father’s Current Partner include:

[a] Mental health concerns, including diagnoses for Attention Deficit Hyper Activity Disorder (“ADHD”), Anxiety and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. [b] Physical health concerns impacting parenting including tonic-clonic seizures, absence seizures, complex partial seizures and myoclonic seizures. She takes multiple medications to manage her seizures. Her seizures sometimes result in unconsciousness and have required multiple hospitalizations. [c] The court inquired about the Father’s Current Partner’s child and whether there was any CAS involvement. The CAST worker advised that there had been, but reportedly the matter was addressed in family court. [d] The CAST did not disclose whether police checks or child welfare checks were completed on the Father’s current partner or any details about those checks. [e] At the hearing some disclosure of previous CAST involvement with her own children was made.

25The court asked the Father’s Current Partner whether her family court matter was at 47 Sheppard and she could not recall, despite the matter being before the court at 47 Sheppard, as recently as January 29, 2026.

26The Father’s Current Partner swore a false Form 35.1 Affidavit (decision-making responsibility, parenting time, contact) where in response to paragraph 12 with respect to the Father who she was residing with at the time, the Father’s Current Partner swore:

1. Has a child of this person ever been in the care of the children’s aid society? No.
2. Has this person been found guilty of a criminal offence (for which he/she has not received a pardon) or is he/she facing criminal charges? No.

The Father’s Criminality

27The Toronto Police Service (“TPS”) records from 2002 – 2022 for the Father are summarized as follows:

1. On November 22, 2002, the Father was charged with assault with a weapon (x2), dangerous weapons, and assault. The Father was angry that his own mother interrupted a phone conversation. He pulled the phone out of the wall and pushed his mother against the wall. He pushed his sister into their mother’s room and got a hammer and started pounding on the door. The Father threw the hammer at his sister’s head, and her head was bleeding. The Father had a knife in his jacket and started threatening his mother and sister. Conviction #1 - On April 8, 2003, the Father received a suspended sentence and 24 months’ probation and a lifetime weapons prohibition.
2. On November 22, 2003, the Father kicked in a basement kitchen window when he could not get into a party after it the party was over.
3. On October 3, 2005, the Father was suicidal and walking on the train tracks after taking numerous Tylenol pills. He was apprehended under the Mental Health Act.
4. On August 11, 2006, the TPS records indicate the Father is an alcohol abuser and a drug abuser. The Father grabbed the mother of his older children by the left forearm causing a bruise. Later, the Father pushed his finger into her throat. The Father then kicked the grandmother of his older children, who was pregnant and had physical disabilities, in the stomach and elbowed her in the mouth. Conviction #2 - On March 28, 2007, the Father received 12 days pre-trial custody, suspended sentence and a year of probation.
5. On March 19, 2007, the Father was arrested for failure to comply with a recognizance.
6. On November 4, 2007, the Father was charged with forgery, uttering forged documents and possession of property obtained by crime. The Father attempted to obtain 60 Oxycontin tablets from a pharmacy. Conviction #3 - On January 2, 2009, the Father was sentence to two days pretrial custody and 18 months’ probation.
7. On July 13, 2008, the Father was charged with knowingly having false insurance.
8. On January 18, 2009, the Father was charged with assault against the mother of his older children. He pushed her out of her apartment and grabbed the shirt she was wearing twisting it around her neck causing her to choke. Conviction #3 - The Father was convicted and sentenced to 15 days pre-trial custody, a suspended sentence, 18 months’ probation.
9. On September 6, 2009, the Father was charged with Assault and three counts of failure to comply with probation. The Father engaged in an argument with the mother of his older children before tackling her. Conviction #5 - The Father was sentenced to 46 days pretrial custody and four days in jail and two years’ probation as well as a DNA sample.
10. On December 14, 2009, the Father was charged with obstructing a peace officer, failure to comply with probation (x2) when the mother of his older children contacted police to report an unwanted guest. The Father gave a false name.
11. On March 15, 2010, the Father was charged with threatening death after he engaged in an argument with his sister. Conviction #6 - On April 16, 2010, he was sentenced to 18 days pre-trial custody, suspended sentence, 12 months probation.
12. On August 26, 2011, the Father was charged with failure to comply with probation and threatening bodily harm related to the mother of his older children. When the mother of his older children said she was going to call the police, he threatened to slit her throat. Conviction #7 - On October 12, 2011, the Father entered a common law peace bond, $500 and 12 months of no contact.
13. On October 22, 2011, the Father was charged with failing to comply with his probation.
14. On April 8, 2012, the Father’s former girlfriend and mother to one of his other older children reported to police that her boyfriend was at the bottom of the basement stairs with her 13 year old sister who was topless and wearing a towel. The former girlfriend became hysterical and called 911. The Father was asked by TPS to leave until things calm down. No parties wanted to give a statement to TPS. Four days later the allegations were withdrawn by the former girlfriend who stated that she overreacted.
15. On April 14, 2012, the Father was charged with assault, threatening death and disobeying a court order related to the Father’s former girlfriend and mother to one of his other older children (who is also the mother of the child, the Father would later be charged with having sexually assaulted and interfered with). The Father’s former girlfriend was 10 weeks pregnant and the Father pushed her out of the way and elbowed her in the stomach, grabbed her by the neck and started to yell at her, during an argument over an X-box. Conviction # 8 - On July 31, 2012, he was sentenced to 59 days pretrial custody, and 12 months probation and to complete counselling and PARS.
16. On February 18, 2014, the Father was charged with fraudulently obtaining transportation.
17. On January 9, 2018, the Sudbury Police contacted TPS with respect to sexual assault and sexual interference charges related to the Father and a young child between January 2012 and April 2012.
18. On February 4, 2018, the TPS were called on a domestic incident between the Mother and Father where a window was broken.
19. On February 17, 2018, the TPS was called again on a domestic call between the Mother and the Father, where K.T. and S.P. were present and the Mother was 14 weeks pregnant with A.T. The Father tried to take K.T. to a car show, but the Mother was told by the CAST not to let the Father be alone with any children as they investigated the sexual assault allegations.
20. On April 12, 2019, the Mother called 911 to request that the Father be removed from her apartment because he was intoxicated. The Father was under conditions at the time not to communicate directly or indirectly with males and females under the age of 16 unless in the presence of his surety, a worker with the CAST, or at the discretion of the CAST.
21. On May 14, 2019, the Mother called TPS to attend the home and the TPS reportedly heard the Father yelling in the background. The parents were fighting over the Mother’s alleged infidelity. The Father indicated that he stays with the Mother sometimes and is trying to make their relationship work. The Father was still subject to criminal conditions restricting his ability to be around children related to sexual assault and sexual interference charges.
22. On June 2, 2019, the TPS responded to an argument between the parents. While the parents were arguing K.T. had fallen off the bed, was injured and had a bloody nose. The Father left before TPS arrived. The Father was still subject to criminal conditions restricting his ability to be around children related to sexual assault and sexual interference charges.
23. On September 12, 2019, the TPS responded when the Father attended the Mother’s home unannounced and uninvited. He reportedly held the Middle Children’s maternal grandfather by the neck, pinning him to the ground and was charged with assault. He then took the Mother’s television, and smashed it by the bus stop out front of her house and was charged with mischief.
24. On December 20, 2019, the TPS received a call and the Father was having suicidal and homicidal ideations as reported by his CAMH case manager. The Father attended the hospital with TPS.
25. On July 7, 2021, the Father engaged in an argument with his older son, who has special needs, resulting in TPS being called.

28The CAST has not sought an update to the Father’s TPS records since May 31, 2022, and therefore relevant information is not before the court, including the outcome of the September 12, 2019, charges.

29Only at the return of this motion on May 6, 2026, was the court provided with the Father’s current Adult Probation order, attached to the Affidavit of Taia Giecko, affirmed May 4, 2026. This was provided only after the court questioned on April 22, 2026, what convictions resulted in the Father currently being on probation. Conviction # 9 - On May 27, 2024, the Father was charged with offences related to Assault and Threatening Death/Bodily Harm and subsequently convicted on September 11, 2025, and is currently on probation. His sentence included two months of house arrest.

The Father’s Current Charges

30Currently, the Father is charged with:

1. two counts of assault of the Older Child, S.P., between August 2023 and July 31, 2024, and on December 10, 2024; and
2. assault on the Mother of his older children on December 10, 2024.

31The Father denies these charges. But states that there was a mutual incident of spitting between him and the mother of his older children.

32As a result of the charges related to the Child, S.P., the Father is also subject to a criminal undertaking, dated December 13, 2024, which prohibits him from contacting or going anywhere within 100 metres of S.P., and the Middle Children, except through a Family Court Order. The Family Court made an access order on December 16, 2024.

The Birth of K.T.

33On March xx, 2016, K.T. was born. She is currently 10 years old.

34K.T. has special physical needs, being diagnosed with pulmonary stenosis at birth. At that time the family was receiving services from NCFS and had an open child protection file when she was born, which closed on January 2017.

Verified Child Sexual Abuse by Father

35In March 2017, the NCFS file re-opened, when there were reported concerns that the Father became enraged to the point where he threw a mug on the floor and the Mother took S.P. and K.T. to safety in another room. Following this incident, the Father resumed taking his medication; however, then he discontinued his medication and was not seeing a psychiatrist.

36In January 2018, the child of the Father’s former girlfriend to whom he was a step-father disclosed to members of her foster family, that the Father had sexually assaulted her sometime between January and April 2012 when she was 4 years old. The child disclosed:

1. She was home during the day and watching TV on the pull-out couch in the living room while her mother and younger brother were sleeping in another room.
2. The Father laid down on the couch beside her, pulled the sheets over both of them, then pulled her pants and underwear down. She said "no" and was going to scream, but he covered her mouth.
3. The Father got on top of her with his clothes on and rubbed his groin on her vagina. He stopped when her grandfather entered the apartment, and she was able to pull her pants and underwear up and the Father told her not to tell anyone, or he would haunt her.

37The transcript from the child’s statements to Greater Sudbury Police Service were contained in the criminal records provided to the court on the first return date of this motion. The TPS records also contained references to these alleged offences. The child’s grandfather (who the child had reported entered the apartment) passed away on December 8, 2017.

38NCFS investigated and verified the allegation of sexual abuse of a child by the Father.

The Birth of A.T. and the Youngest Child C.L.

39On August xx, 2018, A.T was born. A.T. is currently 7 years old.

40On June xx, 2020, the Mother’s Youngest Child, C.L., was born.

41On June 18, 2020, a nurse at Scarborough Hospital and a Crown Attorney contacted the CAST. The Crown Attorney reported that the Youngest Child’s father was convicted of sexual interference of a three-year-old child and four convictions for failure to comply with the sex offender registry.

Child Protection Application Commenced

42On July 23, 2020, the CAST commenced a Protection Application and a temporary without prejudice supervision order was made placing the Older Child, the Middle Children, and the Youngest Child, (collectively, the “Children”) with their Mother.

43At that time, the CAST noted the Father had a significant history of child protection involvement with NCFS regarding his volatile, conflictual relationship with the mother of his older children. The Father was working on “securing housing” and had participated in the Caring Dads program, with positive feedback, according to the Affidavit of Joelle Williams sworn July 15, 2020.

S.P.’s Disclosures to the CAST

44On October 14, 2020, S.P. disclosed to the CAST that she did not want to have contact with the Father, as she recalled incidents of intimate partner violence between the Father and the Mother. She stated that she would be “scared” to see the Father because he “screamed super loud” and “tried to kill” the Mother.

Children Were Found in Need of Protection

45On December 14, 2020, the Middle Children were found to be in need of protection pursuant to subsection 74(2)(b)(i) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, Sch 1 and placed in the care of their Mother subject to CAST supervision for six months with terms and conditions.

46In January 2021, the Father began having one monthly in-person visit with the Middle Children at the CAST’s Saturday access program. He missed the first visit because he forgot.

47In February 2021, the Father’s mental health case manager at the Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”) provided the following information:

1. The Father is diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and is taking antidepressants and a mood stabilizer.
2. The Father was scheduled to attend Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (“DBT”) in March 2021.
3. The Father was using cocaine but attended an addictions program and has not been using it since. He uses marijuana regularly.

48On March 31, 2021, the Father reported to TPS that the Mother was living with the Youngest Child’s father who was on the sex offender registry.

The First Status Review Application

49On June 2, 2021, the matter returned to court for a first appearance on a status review application.

50On June 28, 2021, by 14B motion in writing, the Middle Children were placed in a further final supervision order with their Mother with terms and conditions for a duration for six months.

51In early July 2021, the Mother and the Father agreed that A.T. would spend two nights with the Father, despite the court order that access was at the discretion of the CAST. During that unapproved access visit, A.T. gained access to a bottle of prescription medication and was exposed to verbal and physical conflict between the Father and his older son (then 17 years old).

52On July 7, 2021, TPS were contacted related to the older son allegedly leaving out a bottle of prescription medication, which was denied by the older son. The TPS records indicate that the Father’s older son is diagnosed with high functioning Autism, Sensory Processing Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder and also struggles with aggression. The Father reportedly stated to TPS that his older son “needed to be put in his place” and a physical altercation nearly ensued but the older son’s mother intervened. The Father grabbed the older son by the left shoulder. The older son was taken to Centenary Hospital and had soft tissue damage. No charges were laid.

The Children’s First Removal from Their Mother

53On July 8, 2021, the Children were removed from their Mother’s care because she continued to permit the Youngest Child’s father to reside in the home and the Mother had reportedly coached the Children to hide this information from the CAST worker.

54By that time, A.T. had missed multiple medical appointments and missed his speech and language assessments to address his language delays. K.T. had also missed several follow-up appointments with her cardiologist.

55The Children were place in the temporary care of the CAST.

56In July 2021, the CAST made a referral to the CAST’s Journey to Zero program.

Report to the CAST by the Father’s Older Son

57On August 6, 2021, the Father’s older son reported to the CAST concerns about the safety of the Middle Children when in the Father’s care. He described that during the weekend that A.T. had an overnight visit with the Father, there was a physical altercation in A.T.’s presence. Reportedly A.T. did not respond by crying or being upset, which concerned the older son, and also that the Father would expose such a young child to this type of conflict.

58In October 2021, the CAST worker observed that the Father’s home, which he shared with his former partner, K.S. (the Father’s “Former Partner”), had several safety concerns including marijuana and drug paraphernalia left out, and piles of garbage.

59On October 20, 2021, the CAST was working towards a reunification plan.

60In October and November 2021, weapons and drugs were in the Mother’s home. The Mother admitted she had previously permitted the Youngest Child’s father into the home when the Children were there, and that she used crystal meth, she attempted self-harm, and asked the CAST worker to remove the remaining gun from her home.

61By November 22, 2021, the Father indicated he was still not ready for the CAST to observe his home again.

62On December 14, 2021, the evidence was that the Children were doing very well in foster care. K.T. was described as being cooperative and liking her quiet times as well as enjoying playing with A.T. The foster parents reportedly had success working with K.T. to acknowledge her feelings and talk through situations when she was feeling aggressive.

Early Status Review Seeking Extended Society Care

63In March 2022, the CAST was seeking extended society care for the Children in its Amended Early Status Review Application.

64At that time all of the Children were again reportedly doing well in foster care, according to the affidavit of Joelle Williams, sworn December 12, 2022, which stated:

[a] K.T. was learning to manage her emotions and behaviours and enjoyed summer camp. Her pulmonary valve had stabilized, and she was able to participate in regular physical activities. K.T. was attending medical appointments as scheduled. [b] A.T. was regularly seeing his pediatric neurologist and had an assessment completed. He exhibited symptoms of global developmental delays and was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”) on October 20, 2022. A.T. was referred for a speech and language assessment which determined he had receptive and expressive speech delays. He transitioned well to school and was settled into a routine. He was described as thriving with one-on-one attention and had a wonderful disposition.

The Children are Placed with Their Father

65By December 20, 2022, the CAST sought to have the Children placed with the Father and the Father’s Former Partner under a temporary supervision order.

66At that time, the CAST’s worker, Joelle Williams, identified the following “key areas of concern” regarding the Father’s plan to care for the Children including:

1. The Father’s “History” of intimate partner violence and conflict
2. The Father’s Lack of parenting skills
3. The Allegations of the Father’s Sexual Abuse of a Child

67With respect to the Father’s history of intimate partner violence, the CAST indicated that he has a “significant history of worries”, which is how the CAST worker described it, related to intimate partner violence with at least three previous partners and conflict with other females including his mother and sister.

68The Father’s criminal charges related to sexual interference and sexual assault of a child were withdrawn in 2019. However, NCFS had verified the protection concern and the CAST continued to implement a safety plan with the family from the perspective that the disclosure was true in order to ensure adequate plans. The CAST service team participated in a consultation with Radius Child and Youth Services and received information and resources to inform the safety planning and Sexual Behaviour Rules, which were reportedly implemented.

69At that time, the Father was reportedly working with a case management supervisor at the Yonge Street Mission, and a mental health case manager at the CMHA. Through his mental health case manager at CMHA, the Father participated in substance misuse counselling, received psychiatric supports, and accessed employment services and supportive counselling. The Father had reportedly attended anger management and was engaged in weekly virtual DBT therapy sessions at that time.

70The Affidavit of Joelle Williams, sworn December 12, 2022, supporting this temporary motion, is only ten pages with no attachments.

71With respect to the history of intimate partner violence, Ms. Williams stated:

Records from the Children's Aid Society of Toronto and Native Child and Family Services indicate a significant history of worries related to intimate partner violence between [the Father] and at least three previous partners, including [the Mother], and adult conflict with other females including [the Father’s] mother and sister.

72The evidence does not disclose that there were charges against the Father on September 12, 2019, when he allegedly held the maternal grandfather by the neck, pinning him to the ground and was charged with assault and smashed the Mother’s television. The outcome of those charges has not been provided to the court.

73The court file (both paper and electronic) did not contain the Father’s TPS records until they were filed during the hearing of this motion on April 22, 2026, when the OCL for the Older Child, S.P. brought them to the court’s attention, despite submissions that the Father’s criminal records was before the previous case management judge.

74On December 20, 2022, a temporary order was made, by the previous case management judge, placing the Children in the care of the Father and the Father’s Former Partner. The youngest child, C.L., was placed with the Father’s sister, a kith placement.

75On June 20, 2023, the court granted a final order placing the Children under a supervision order with their Father and the Father’s Former Partner, K.S., relying on a Statement of Agreed Facts.

The Youngest Child is Placed Back in CAST Care

76On June 21, 2023, the day after the final order was made, C.L. experienced significant physical injuries while being cared for by her kith caregiver, which injuries were identified during an access visit with her Mother. A joint investigation with the CAST and TPS was initiated. TPS completed an investigation and no charges were laid. No TPS records were provided to the court. The CAST verified “unexplained and serious injuries, maltreater unknown”.

77On June 26, 2023, an order was made placing C.L. into the CAST’s temporary care. On November 3, 2023, C.L. was placed under a temporary supervision order with the Mother. On December 10, 2024, a final s. 102 deemed custody order was made placing the Youngest Child with the Mother. However, C.L. now is currently under a supervision order with the Mother.

78By June 26, 2023, the Father had completed an intake session with Strides to provide counselling for the Children.

Strides and S.P. Report to CAST

79On November 2, 2023, a counsellor from Strides Mental Health reported that the Father disclosed physical discipline towards S.P., which S.P. stated happened a lot.

80S.P. disclosed that the Father’s Former Partner hits A.T.

81The Father said the physical discipline was a one-time occurrence and would not happen in the future. The Father indicated that he was frustrated that the Children would not settle down for bed.

82The Father agreed to reach out to Strides to incorporate child management in their counselling to better manage the Children’s behaviours and he agreed to step outside to calm down.

83The Father and the Children are not currently engaged with Strides.

The Current Status Review Application

84On December 7, 2023, the current status review application was issued seeking an order placing the Children with the Father and his Former Partner, subject to the CAST supervision for six months.

85In January 2024, S.P. advised her Mother that the Father threw a phone at her, resulting in a bruise.

86The Father was reportedly struggling to manage S.P. and the Middle Children and on March 30, 2024, there was an emergency after hours situation when the Father reportedly left S.P. and the Middle Children on the Mother’s balcony.

87While the Middle Children were living with the Father during the previous status review period they had been attending school inconsistently and attending late.

88On or about April 2024 the Father began a relationship with his Current Partner. It was not part of the evidence what the circumstances were that led to the breakdown of the relationship with the Father and his Former Partner.

89The CAST did not seek to have the final supervision order amended, despite the Father’s Former Partner no longer caring for the Children and the introduction of his Current Partner. It is unclear from the evidence whether background checks were completed on the Father’s Current Partner.

90While the Children were residing with the Father and the Father’s Current Partner they were both expressing feelings of being overwhelmed at times while parenting the Children. The Father and his Current Partner were experiencing challenges keeping their home clean and ensuring there was space for the Children to play, sleep and eat because of the state of the home. The Children had head lice infestations which also meant that the Children missed school and their trauma counselling, despite attempts by the Father and his Current Partner to eradicate the lice.

The Children’s Removal From Their Father’s Care

91On December 10, 2024, the TPS removed the Children from their Father and placed them back with their Mother, reportedly with the Father’s consent.

92A Toronto Paramedic reported to the CAST that the Older Child had engaged in an argument with the Father and the Father’s Current Partner. The Older Child was reportedly slapped by the Father in his car, which caused her to fall back and hit her head on the car door window. The Older Child had a bruise on the left side of her forehead. The Older Child was made to stand outside in the rain for about an hour with no boots or jacket on. Additionally, it was reported that the Father was in an argument with his older adult son, according to the Affidavit of Leslie Amendola, sworn December 13, 2024, who was the assigned worker at that time.

93On December 10, 2024, the TPS also reported to the CAST:

[a] The Older Child and the Father got into an argument and he locked her out of the home. He came outside and wanted to take her for a drive, she refused and he dragged her to the car. [b] The Older Child began kicking at the window trying to get out and the Father turned around and smacked her across the face, causing her head to hit the window, and created a bump on her forehead. [c] The Older Child’s adult step-brother, who resides with [the Kith Caregiver] two doors away, intervened. The Father and the older adult stepbrother got into a physical altercation. [d] The officers decided to wait for Child and Youth Advocacy Centre Detectives to interview the Older Child the following day. The Father agreed for the Children to be taken to another caregiver for the night and for the police to provided transportation. [e] Toronto EMS assessed the Older Child and did not feel she needed to go to the hospital. No other injuries were reported to the officer.

94TPS observed the injury to the Older Child’s face to be a medium sized bump on the left side of the top of her forehead, which was starting to bruise. It hurt and was tender to touch.

95On December 11, 2024, TPS Detective Michelle Kim from CYAC interviewed S.P. with CAST worker, Leslie Amendola, present and S.P. reported:

[a] S.P. asked for some food and her Father and his Current Partner said no. [b] S.P. began yelling that she should have food because she was hungry. [c] The Father told her to go for a car ride with him to calm down. [d] S.P. did not want to go but the Father pushed her inside. [e] S.P. was yelling, screaming, kicked everything, She was sitting in the back seat behind the passenger window. The Father took off her boots and brought them in the house. [f] S.P. stated that the Father leaned over and hit her face onto the window, causing a bruise and a bump. The Father told her to shut up after that. [g] S.P. was made to stand on the porch in the cold for a long time with no boots and no jacket on. [h] S.P. said “I was terrified”. She also said she felt scared and angry. [i] The mother of the Father’s older children arrived and told S.P. to wait in her car. [j] The Father reportedly told the mother of the Father’s older children he would vandalize her car and kill her if she did not let her out of the car. [k] The Father then argued with his older son, who is S.P.’s step brother. [l] S.P. saw her Father grab and push her step-brother. [m] S.P. reported a previous incident when the Father slapped her in the face, his ring cut her face and it was bleeding. [n] S.P. reported that on another occasion the Father hit the dog with his Current Partner’s leg brace and smacked the dog for 2 minutes straight. [o] S.P. stated that the Father “smokes weed” in the car and her friends say that she smells like weed. [p] S.P. thinks the Father is suppose to be taking medication for his mental health but she does not think he is taking it right now. [q] S.P. stated that when the Father’s Current Partner is not around that the Father will hit the dogs, or “hit us” and “take it out on us” and “he takes his anger out on us”.

96On December 11, 2024, the CAST visited the Children at the Mother’s home with her with her current partner and the following was disclosed:

[a] K.T. disclosed that the Father smacked her on the butt with his hand, and that the Father hurt the S.P. “a bunch of times” and “smacked her on the head”. [b] S.P. disclosed that the Father did “dangerous and threatening things” to A.T. by “hurting him by smacking him across the face” which happens at least once a week. [c] A.T. spontaneously disclosed that the Father punched his adult son in the face and that his Father “hurt him a lot”. [d] On December 12, 2024, the Father was charged with two counts of assault on the Older Child. The Father also has charges against him related to the mother of his older children arising from the events on December 10, 2024.

Temporary Order Placing the Children with Their Mother

97Relying on the disclosure by S.P. and the Middle Children, the CAST brought a motion for an order to have the Children placed with their Mother.

98On December 16, 2024, the Children were placed with their Mother under a temporary supervision order, and access was ordered for the Father.

99The return to the Mother was precipitated by the Father’s assault charges and disclosure from the Children and not as a result of the Mother meeting the CAST’s expectations for return or through a developed transition plan to address the Children’s needs.

100Reports to the CAST about the Children being in need of protection in their Mother’s care began immediately and have continued on a regular basis since this placement was made.

Anonymous Report to the CAST

101On December 17, 2024, the CAST received a report from an anonymous caller concerned that four Children were living with the Mother and her partner but the caller believed the Mother and her partner were drug addicts. The Mother and her partner were constantly asking people for money and food, and often presented themselves as being high, as their eyes were often glossy and they were not able to focus. The apartment “stinks” and the caller hears adult screaming phrases such as “f#ck you” and “I wish you weren’t f#cking here”. The caller reported hearing smacking sounds and the Children screaming. The concerns were not verified by the CAST.

102In February 2025, A.T. reportedly destroyed his classroom.

103By February 2025, every appointment for the Children with Strides Toronto had been a “no show”, which continued into late March 2025, when Strides closed their file.

104In March 2025, the Older Child began to live with the mother of the Father’s older children.

105On April 8, 2025, the Mother was reported struggling with her own mental health issues.

106In April 2025, A.T. reportedly was displaying sexualized behaviours at school.

107On April 29, 2025, the Father and his Current Partner reportedly had started attending a “Let’s Talk” program through Yonge Street Mission, which focuses on anger management and coping skills. The Father also reported that he was prescribed three mood stabilizers. The Father was connected with Dr. Grundland a psychiatrist at Centenary Hospital, but he is not currently connected to Dr. Grundland.

108The Father was reportedly looking into programming supports through Surrey Place for parents with ASD and ADHD children, but he is not currently involved in any programming.

109He is also not currently involved in any programming through Strides. The Father states he is the process of scheduling an appointment with a “Dr. Nasu” his “new psychiatrist”.

110The Father’s partner is reportedly under the care of a psychiatrist through Centenary Hospital and reported diagnosis of ADHD, PTSD, anxiety and depression. She also has serious epilepsy resulting in hospitalizations.

111On April 29, 2025, the Father’s home was “overrun with items and in need of thorough cleaning”. Clothing in the Children’s bedrooms made it difficult to see the floor or the beds. The home had an odour of cat urine. The home was not in a state that the CAST could support access visits in the home at that time.

112In May 2025, K.T. told the CAST worker that she had not been attending counselling and missed her therapist.

113On May 15, 2025, K.T. was suspended from school because she “postured to another child with scissors”.

114In August 2025, the Mother was unable to attend at the Children’s doctor’s office to obtain a referral for K.T. for an assessment for ASD with the Shoniker Clinic, and she was unable to re-engage with Strides.

115In September 2025, K.T. missed her appointment with her cardiologist at Sick Kids hospital.

116On September 3, 2025, the Father was referred to Mindful Fathers, but he forgot to attend.

117By September 22, 2025, the CAST deemed the home of the Father and his Current Partner suitable for access visits.

118By October 10, 2025, the Middle Children’s access began to expand in the Father’s home.

Anonymous Report to CAST about the Mother’s Care of the Children

119On September 29, 2025 another referral was made to the CAST by an anonymous caller who reported that the Children had head lice and other concerns about the children’s clothing, attending school without lunches and that K.T. is running around the neighbourhood alone until 9:00 p.m. Additionally that the Mother and her partner use drugs, specifically “coke and crack” and keep the Children in a separate room. The Mother’s partner was described as verbally aggressive in the home and frequently yells and uses derogatory language with the Children.

Teacher Reports to CAST about K.T.

120On October 2, 2025, a referral was made by K.T.’s teacher:

[a] K.T. was hoarding food, hiding food and was frequently very hungry. [b] K.T. was fixated on another student and reportedly written letters containing a death threat and a stick figure holding a knife. [c] K.T. mimics a cat in class meowing, hissing and crawling under desks. [d] K.T. is in significant discomfort from head lice which she pulls from her hair and flicks around the classroom. The teacher had applied for financial support for the children to assist with clothing.

121On October 8, 2025, K.T. reported that the Mother sometimes has trouble getting up in the morning and the Children jump on her to wake her up. The Mother’s partner is also still sleeping.

Vice-Principal Reports to CAST about the Children

122On October 15, 2025, a referral was made by the school vice-principal to the CAST that the Children were not coming to school with lunches, which the school was providing, and that the Children were dirty, unkempt and smelly. A.T.’s feet were black, and he reported that his Mother does not bath him. The Middle Children had head lice and the Mother could not afford the solution.

123On October 31, 2025, a school meeting was held, the Father and his Current Partner attended and the Mother attended virtually after being an hour late. A.T. was well below grade level and a psychological assessment would be ordered. The Father’s partner purchased the lice treatment and applied it, and it appeared effective.

124In November 2025, K.T. was suspended from school, but the CAST worker did not have any further notes about this incident.

125On November 11, 2025, the Father’s Current Partner took K.T. to a What’s Up Walk In program for brief counselling. However, this was stopped because it “was not working” for K.T. and the counsellors did not think the format was suitable for a child under 12.

126In December 2025, the Father overheld the Children for a week and they did not attend school. The Father indicates they were sick.

127On January 8, 2026, an all-party and counsel meeting was held in-person; however, the Mother and her partner attended by ZOOM. The goal of the meeting was to work towards a deemed custody order and for the CAST to “potentially exit the family’s involvement if the plan was successful”.

128At that time, the Middle Children were spending every Tuesday and three weekends a month with the Father and his Current Partner; however the Mother struggled to follow this schedule and the Children were spending much more of their time with the Father and even their younger maternal half-sibling was spending time with the Father and his Current Partner.

129In January 2026, the CAST worker received an email from the Father’s Current Partner following an appointment with an unnamed developmental pediatrician that stated:

[a] K.T. may have a fracture in her ankle and has had ankle pain since the summer. X-rays were ordered and K.T.’s spine is curved backwards differently than typical scoliosis and further imaging is required. [b] SNAP assessment forms must be completed by teachers and parents. [c] K.T. was referred for an ASD assessment. [d] A follow up appointment is booked for June 15, 2026.

130The Mother had not completed the SNAP assessment forms to date.

Amended Status Review Application

131On February 5, 2026, the CAST amended its Status Review Application to seek a six-month supervision order placing the older Child, S.P., with the mother of the Father’s older children, and the Middle Children in the care of their Mother.

Report to CAST from the School about Concerns for the Children

132In February 2026, the Children were reported by the school to attend school without socks, and K.T.’s feet were cold.

133In February 2026, K.T. missed her next appointment with her cardiologist.

134The Children’s dental needs have not been addressed. A.T. reportedly has four cavities and is tongue-tied. K.T.’s dental assessment could not proceed because updated cardiologist information was required and the cardiologist appointments were missed. The Children qualify for the Healthy Smiles program, but the card became inactive and the Mother was working on completing the necessary paper work. To date none of the parents or caregivers have follow-up appointments on the dental needs of the Middle Children.

135A.T.’s report card dated February 9, 2026, indicates that he has been absent from school 17 days and has another 15 days lates. All of his learning skills and work habits are “Needs Improvement”. He has a D in each of Language, Math, and Science.

136K.T.’s report card dated February 10, 2026, indicates that she has been absent from school 21.5 days and has another 15 days late. All of her learning skills and work habits are “Needs Improvement”. Her report card indicates that the teacher does not have enough information to determine whether she can read. Many of her subjects indicate that due to lack of completing assignments and lack of participation she cannot be assessed.

137On February 19, 2026, the Mother’s home had a strong odour of animal urine particularly in the Children’s bedroom, and the Children themselves smelled of cat urine.

Report to CAST from the School

138On February 24, 2026, K.T.’s teacher reported to the CAST, that K.T hit the A.T. with a stick, bit him, and then left the property and ran to her Mother’s home.

Reported to CAST from SickKids

139On February 25, 2026, a physician’s assistant at SickKids Hospital reported to the CAST that the Father’s partner had brought the 10-year-old to SickKids seeking support for the Child’s anger and aggressive behaviours at home and at school.

140The Father’s partner contacted the Garry Hurvitz Centre for Community Mental Health at SickKids and completed the referral. On March 3, 2026, K.T. was determined not to be eligible for this program.

Youth Link Reports to the CAST

141On March 1, 2026, the CAST received a report from a therapist at Youth Link after the A.T. was brought by his Father for a session. A.T. described the home environment as “disgusting” and that it smells and had cockroaches and other pests.

142On March 25, 2026, the Father signed up for another session of Mindful Fathers from March 26, 206 to June 11, 2026. The Father reported that he and his Current Partner had completed an anger management program.

143It was never explained to the court why the Father’s Current Partner had completed an anger management program and whether this was court ordered or not.

144On March 25, 2026, the Mother was a “no show” for the Children’s medical appointment with their primary medical provider.

School Vice-Principal Reported to CAST from the School

145On March 30, 2026, the Vice Principal reported as follows:

i. A.T. was in the office because of behavioural issues. ii. A.T. had soiled himself outside and he had to go home. iii. That morning, K.T. was refusing to go to class. She was hiding in stairwell. The educators tried to incorporate her with helping with snacks. iv. K.T. was suspended on Friday because she had a blue bottle in her hands claiming it was "pepper spray", and scissors in hands, and was in the stairwell and threatened two educators to spray them. She charged at them with scissors and sprayed the spray. It was not pepper spray but peppermint oil. v. K.T. motioned to slit her own neck with the scissors. vi. Staff were able to get the objects out of her hands and calm her down. She was being quite violent and so they released her and she ran to her Mother’s home. Within 10 minutes, K.T. was calm and collected when home. vii. Having the kids in the same school is not working. The tension between the kids is not going anywhere and is ongoing. viii. The school feels like both these kids are just deteriorating. ix. They feel there is an “underlying trauma piece” and A.T. is angry at his sister. x. A.T.’s behaviour is getting much more difficult, and he is also spitting now. They feel like they are losing A.T. and can’t reach him anymore. xi. The school no longer knows how to help. xii. The school is very concerned about both children. xiii. K.T.’s suspension is 20 days pending investigation.

146A psychological report, dated March 30, 2026, was completed on K.T. Her cognitive tests varied significantly from extremely low to average. K.T.’s profile is consistent with combined and severe Attention Deficit/Hyperactivities Disorder impacting her in a variety of settings. The report underlines that the K.T. would “benefit from intervention around building frustration tolerance, acting opposite to unhelpful urges and actions and processing emotions related to household instability and life disruptions. She is capable of learning but requires significant support.”

147On April 20, 2026, K.T. ran from school to her Mother’s home. The Principal and Vice Principal attended the home to support K.T.’s return to school but she refused.

School Report to CAST about Concerns for the Youngest Child

148The Mother did not attend school to pick up C.L. and the CAST was notified and attended the residence to check on the Mother. K.T. was leaving the apartment with two friends. The Mother’s partner was sleeping, and his eyes were red. The Mother appeared while she covered her face and said she had a bad virus and had fallen asleep after taking medication. It was 6 p.m. when the Mother left to pick-up C.L. from school.

149The following day K.T. and C.L. were dropped off late for school with no explanation.

150The Father’s Current Partner also told the court that on April 21, 2026, A.T. again “trashed” his classroom over a laptop at school.

151Later on April 21, 2026, the CAST ongoing worker observed K.T. become dysregulated when she was told she had to go to her Father’s home and could not play with her friends. K.T. trashed the school office and began kicking a school-based monitor. A.T. was present but removed for his safety. K.T. kicked the Father’s Current Partner in the stomach and hit her. K.T.’s shoes were removed so that she could not hit people or throw them.

152K.T. ran out into a field while the Father’s Current Partner chased her. K.T. was reportedly humming and not responding to direction or communication.

153The Youthdale crisis line and 911 were contacted. An ambulance attended and K.T. was taken to the hospital.

154On April 22, 2026, the court asked the OCL whether K.T would have difficulty returning to the Father’s home and whether she understood the plan was for her to return to the Father’s home. The OCL indicated that this is what K.T. wanted. However, the evidence from Taia Giecko’s affidavit affirmed May 4, 2026, was that there were difficulties having the Children return to the Father’s home temporarily and that K.T. had a hard time and did not want to go to the Father’s home. A.T. was sad and angry. The Father’s Current Partner had to “almost half-carry” K.T. who was kicking, hitting and screaming.

155On April 27, 2026, during a home visit with the CAST worker, K.T. and the Father’s Current Partner engaged in intense screaming while the Father’s Current Partner struggled to get K.T. inside the house. K.T. hit and kicked the Father’s Current Partner with her hands and shoes and anything in her reach. The Father’s Current Partner attempted to restrain K.T., away from A.T. and the Father’s Current Partner’s child.

156K.T. trashed her bedroom and attempted to dump all the dirty cat litter all over the floor.

157The CAST worker contacted 911 and the Mobile Crisis and Paramedics to assess K.T. and advised that they did not have grounds to remove K.T. to a hospital.

158The Father’s Current Partner also explained that there were difficulties during the weekend visits. K.T. had a hard time and did not want to return to the Father’s home and A.T. was sad and angry to leave his Mother. K.T. was reportedly kicking, hitting and screaming at the Father’s Current Partner.

159A.T. was reportedly angry. A.T. asked when he was going to see “C.”, his previous foster care provider and he stated that he wanted to see her for 15 days. A.T. also disclosed that the Mother and her partner hit one another.

160The worker learned that A.T. was prescribed glasses on January 21, 2026, but he wore them to school and scouts and lost them and they were never found, so he has been without glasses since then.

161On April 27, 2026, A.T. noted that the Father’s Current Partner’s medication “looked like candy” and he wanted to eat one of them. The CAST ongoing worker advised the Father’s Current Partner to obtain a lock box to store her medication safely.

162On April 30, 2026, K.T. saw a counsellor at Scarborough Centre for healthy Communities focused on emotional regulation counselling and has future sessions book.

163A.K. missed school on May 5, 2026, and was absent on May 6, 2026 as well reportedly due to illness.

PART FIVE - LAW

Paramount Purpose

164The paramount purpose of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, Sch 1 (“CYFSA”) is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children.

165The paramount purpose was intentionally drafted as such in 1999 in an amendment to the predecessor legislation the CFSA to eliminate any confusion between the priorities of other purposes. The paramount purpose is not keeping families together or keeping children out of foster care. There are cases where the best interests, protection and well-being of children require that children be removed from their families.

166In D.M. v. The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2021 ONSC 8360 at paragraph 20, the Divisional Court re-iterated “while the interests of the parent are not ignored, the primary focus of attention is on the child not on the parent. Child protection proceedings are ultimately and fundamentally about what is in the best interests of the children…”

167In Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. V. L., 2012 ONCA 890, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held at paragraph 15:

The court owes a special duty to ensure that the safety and well-being of children are protected. As a result of this special duty, the best interests of the child are always the paramount consideration in child protection proceedings.

168More recently, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held in Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. J.G., 2020 ONCA 415 at paragraph 45, “The CYFSA is remedial legislation enacted for the protection of society’s most vulnerable children.”

Temporary Placement Change Within a Status Review Applications

169Counsel made almost no submissions regarding the legal test to vary an existing temporary supervision order within a Status Review on a temporary basis.

170With respect to the law on a motion to change a temporary placement order with a status review application, sub-section 113(8) of the CYFSA states:

Interim care and custody

113 (8) If an application is made under this section, the child shall remain in the care and custody of the person or society having charge of the child until the application is disposed of, unless the court is satisfied that the child’s best interests require a change in the child’s care and custody.

171Two lines of cases have developed regarding the interpretation of this subsection, which are summarized by Justice Sager in paragraphs 14 to 17 of Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. W.P.P., 2020 ONCJ 388 as follows:

14One line of cases enumerates a test that mandates a material change in the circumstances of the child such that a change in placement is required to meet her best interests. These decisions emphasize the need to demonstrate a material change or a significant change before it will alter a care and custody arrangement found to be in the child’s best interests following a trial or based upon agreed findings of fact set out in a Statement of Agreed Facts.

15The courts in these decisions stress the importance of not interfering with a status quo created by a final order lightly especially when the affidavit evidence on the motion to vary the final placement on a temporary basis is untested. Due to the importance of stability and continuity of care for a child in a child protection proceeding, some courts have interpreted subsection 113(8) and more specifically the use of the words “require a change” to mean that the court must find that the change in circumstances is significant such that it creates a need for a change as opposed to the change being “merely desirable”. See: Kawartha-Haliburton Children's Aid Society v. A.R. and D.F., 2020 ONSC 2738; Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. K.G., 2020 ONCJ 208; CAS Algoma v. S.S., 2010 ONCJ 332; and, Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.G., 2011 ONCJ 746.

16The other line of cases state that it is not necessary to import the test of material change in circumstances into subsection 113(8) of the CYFSA and rather what is required is to demonstrate that there has been sufficient change that effects the child’s best interests requiring a change to her placement. What is sufficient depends on the circumstances of the case. See: The Durham Children’s Aid Society v. J.L., P.L.(F) and P.L.(GF), 2016 ONSC 5925 and Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. A.M., M.E., and I.B., 2020 ONSC 1435.

17At paragraph 26 of The Durham Children’s Aid Society v. J.L., P.L.(F) and P.L.(GF), Justice P.W. Nicholson rejects the need to find a material change in circumstances and says, “Although the order at the conclusion of a child protection application is considered a final order, child protection proceedings in general should be considered fluid until the matter is finalized either by termination of all protection orders or a crown wardship order. Therefore, the court is not bound to find a material change in circumstances before a final order made under a child protection application can be varied. The court is called upon at this stage to determine what is in the best interests of the child.”

172In Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child & Family Services and S.S. and M.S., 2023 ONSC 5011, Justice Finlayson discussed the two lines of authorities about the threshold to vary a supervision order in a status review pending its final resolution.

173Justice Finlayson writes at paragraph 24: “These lines of authorities consider the amount of threshold change that must be demonstrated, in the context of the statutory framework and policy considerations. In so doing, courts also consider the child’s best interests using the factors in section 74(3), as section 113(8) directs.”

174Justice Finlayson ultimately adopted the flexible approach articulated by Justice Sager in Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. W.P.P., 2020 ONCJ 388 at paragraphs 14-17, see also Children’s Aid Society of Brant v. A.H., 2020 ONCJ 49 at paragraph 29.

175Once a court is satisfied that there is evidence of a sufficiently material change in circumstances or a material change in circumstances, a review of the Child’s placement is justified.

176Subsection 74(3) of the CYFSA outlines the factors the court is to consider when making a determination in the best interests of child, as follows:

74(3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall,

(a) consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(b) [not applicable], and

(c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including,

(i) the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs,

(ii) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development,

(iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,

(iv) the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage,

(v) the importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family,

(vi) the child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community,

(vii) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity,

(viii) the merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent,

(ix) the effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case,

(x) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent, and

(xi) the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1, s. 74 (3).

177If the child’s best interests require a change in the child’s care and custody, the court must determine what the appropriate order is for placement of the child.

PART SIX - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

178The Status Review application of the final order, dated June 20, 2023, was issued on December 7, 2023, and has been before the court for nearly two and a half years.

179On December 16, 2024, the status quo was varied, on consent, on a temporary basis by the previous case management judge and a temporary supervision order was made placing the Children with their Mother.

180Currently, all parties and the OCL for the Middle Children agree that the current temporary order should be varied. The parties and the OCL are seeking a temporary supervision order with the Father and his Current Partner.

181The following is the application of the best interests factors.

74(4) (a) the children’s views and wishes;

182The Middle Children, particularly K.T., want to remain with their Mother; however, the OCL submitted that the Children also want to reside with their Father, although K.T.’s recent behaviour suggests she is somewhat conflicted and wishes to continue to reside with her Mother.

74(4) (c)(i) the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs,

74(4) (c)(ii) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development,

183The Middle Children both have extensive special needs.

184K.T. is diagnosed with severe ADHD and a learning disability in the areas of reading, writing and mathematics. K.T. has a longstanding history of difficulties in academic achievements and self-regulation.

185The Psychological Services Report completed by the Toronto District School Board Assessment, dated March 30, 2026, (the “TDSB Report”) notes: [K.T.]’s chronic lateness, absenteeism and frequent exclusionary discipline may make classroom participation more challenging as these factors have limited her opportunities to practice reading, writing, and math skills…. School has been very challenging for her academically, behaviourally and socially.

186K.T. requires significant support to manage the demands of grade 4.

187K.T.’s parents were referred to free seminars through Stride Toronto for caregivers on ADHD and the Scarborough Health Network’s ADHD Clinic in the TDSB Assessment, but the evidence did not suggest any steps taken to engage with those ADHD supports, or previous ones offered through Surrey Place.

188K.T. has a fracture in her foot from the summer that was not diagnosed until January despite her expressing that she was experiencing pain.

189K.T. is also diagnosed with pulmonary stenosis and curvature of her spine. K.T. has unmet dental needs because her cardiologist appointments were missed. An assessment for ASD has been pending for months.

190A.T. is diagnosed with ASD and global developmental delays and a psychological assessment is pending. A.T. has untreated cavities and is tied tongue. A.T. requires glasses, but those have not been replaced.

191The Middle Children’s development requires professional intervention, and which has been delayed or insufficiently addressed.

192The Middle Children have experienced significant deterioration most recently as observed and reported by the school.

193The Middle Children are not developing well, are regularly dysregulated and in crisis. K.T. has required multiple interventions by emergency services. K.T. is physically aggressive to her sibling and her caregivers.

194The Middle Children are both significantly below grade level. K.T.’s academic skills are described as “underdeveloped in the areas of reading, writing, and math”.

74(c)(iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,

74(c) (iv) the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage,

195The Middle Children were born in Ontario and are Canadian and speak English.

196Very limited evidence was provided relevant to these factors.

74(4) (v) the importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family,

74(4) (vi) the child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community

197The Middle Children have very challenging relationships with their parents, siblings, caregiver, teachers, particularly K.T, who displays verbal aggression (screaming, shouting, “I hate you”) and engages in hands-one behaviours (hitting and kicking).

198K.T. is most physically aggressive towards A.T.

199There was limited evidence about positive interactions. The Father’s evidence is that the “kids get along well and enjoy each other’s company”, which is contradicted by the TDSB report he attached to his affidavit.

74(4) ( vii) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity

200The Middle Children have never experienced a continuity of care. They resided with their Mother, before being placed in foster care, then returned to their Father and then back to their Mother.

201The current plan is to disrupt their current placement with their Mother, and to place them back with their Father. The amount of disruption is reduced because the Middle Children have had regular access visits with the Father and his Current Partner.

74(4) (ix) the effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case,

202The status review application has been before the court for over two years. A temporary order is sought which does not resolve the issue of delay. However, the court is setting this matter down for the next trial sitting.

74(4) (x) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent, and

74(4) (xi) the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.

203The existing temporary supervision order was insufficient to address the protection concerns, and there is a risk the Middle Children will suffer harm if they remain in the Mother’s care, based on the following:

1. The Mother’s mental health impacting her ability to met the Middle Children’s most basic needs.
2. The Mother’s admitted historic drug use and questions around her currently being sobriety.
3. The Mother’s inability to get the Middle Children to school.
4. The Mother’s inability to act protectively and preferring the interests of her male partners. The Mother exposed the Middle Children to a person on the sex abuse registry and the Father, despite a supervision condition that she not do so.
5. The Mother’s limited parenting capacity.
6. The Mother’s inability to meet the Middle Children’s most basic needs for food, education, appropriate clothing, and medical/dental appointments.

204The court is also satisfied that there is a risk to the Children being placed with their Father and his Current Partner based on the following:

1. The Father’s serious and ongoing mental health diagnosis of borderline personality disorder.
2. The Father’s lack of mental health counselling, or DBT therapy, or a current psychiatrist.
3. The Father’s struggles to comply with his medication.
4. The Father’s previous criminal record, which includes chronic and prolonged multiple convictions for intimate partner violence including choking and assaulting pregnant women.
5. The Father’s multiple breaches of criminal court conditions.
6. Previous sessions of Caring Dads, PARs and anger management, which the Father has not been able to learn from.
7. The Father’s previous police occurrences report for incidents of family violence where he was given a warning but not charged, including physical interactions with his older child with special needs.
8. The Middle Children’s disclosures about the Father hitting them, their siblings, their Mother, and their dog.
9. The Father’s inability to protect the Middle Children from observing violent interactions.
10. The verified protection concern of sexual assault against a child by NCFS.
11. The Father being on probation for a criminal conviction related to violence in May 2024 and incurring further charges.
12. The Father is currently charged with assaulting the Child, S.P. on two occasions.
13. The Father is also currently charged with assault against the Mother of his older children.
14. The Father’s limited parenting capacity. The Father has not engaged in parenting programs recommended to him for children with ASD or ADHD through Surrey Place.
15. The Father has an extremely bad temper.
16. The Father’s lack of a basic support network apart from his Current Partner.
17. The Father’s Current Partner also mental health diagnoses.
18. The Father’s Current Partner has a serious seizure condition that has resulted in multiple hospitalizations, and concerns about her cognitive abilities.
19. The lack of information about the Father’s Current Partner’s child protection and police checks.
20. The Father’s Current Partner’s lacks transparency with the court, and that she filed false and misleading evidence in her domestic proceeding.

205The court anticipates any transition to foster care may be difficult, especially for K.T. However, the Children did well in foster care previously and A.T. still fondly remembers his foster mother, recently asked to see her and was upset to learn that he was not going to see her.

PART SEVEN - CONCLUSION

206The CAST has satisfied its onus of establishing that the best interests of the Middle Children require a temporary change in their care and custody.

207In respect of the Middle Children, with profound special needs, who have been in repeated crisis recently, the CAST’s proposed plan is to place them with a parent with multiple criminal convictions related to crimes of violence against intimate partners and family members, current charges related to assaulting a child, current criminal condition that there be no contact between the Father and the Middle Children, a verified protection concern related to sexual assault of another child, serious mental health issues, a history of non-compliance with medication, a history of non-compliance with court orders and a life-long pattern of anger resulting in injury to others, unmitigated by Caring Dads, PARS, and other court ordered counselling, and currently not engaged with a psychiatrist this would not adequately protect these Middle Children.

208Additionally, a substitutionally similar plan, with more support in place at that time, and the Children experiencing significantly fewer challenges, was previously tried and resulted in the Middle Children’s removal.

209The supervision terms proposed by the CAST include conditions for services that are not available for the Middle Children (for example, What’s Up Walk-In counselling).

210The CAST argued that it has been two years since the Father was alleged to have assaulted S.P. resulting in the Children’s removal, which is an inaccurate exaggeration of the time. Nevertheless, the mere passage of time does not create safety or mitigate risk, particularly when the issues are serious, chronic and otherwise unaddressed by comprehensive support and services.

211The Father has not taken adequate steps to address his anger issues and his assaultive conduct. The Father is not currently under the care of a psychiatrist, he is not engaged in DBT therapy, or counselling through Strides. There is no evidence from any of his supports at all, except for his Current Partner.

212The Father’s Current Partner was extolled as the solution to these complex issues, but she herself has serious mental and physical health issues. The CAST submitted that she is a new significant mitigating factor, apparently ignoring that she was present during the Middle Children’s and S.P.’s previous removal following the alleged assault on S.P.

213The Father’s Current Partner demonstrated a willingness to place false evidence before the family court when she denied that the Father had child protection history and criminal convictions as well as current charges. The court does not accept the explanation she provided that she thought she was referring to the father of her children as the Father’s name and his address are clearly referred to in that section of her 35.1 Affidavit. This creates risk that she will not report concerns about the Father, or that she does not recognize the concerns.

214There is no other kin or kith plan for the court to consider.

215The court finds it is in the best interests of the Middle Children to order the Middle Children into the temporary care of the CAST and not a supervision order placing them with their Father and his Current Partner, for the following reasons:

1. The Middle Children has multiple diagnoses and extensive needs, which are unmet and require extensive support.
2. The Middle Children require highly capable, organized, empathetic, patient, resourceful, and regulated caregivers.
3. The Middle Children require placement where they are not at risk of physical assault or “physical discipline”.
4. The Middle Children have been exposed to years of intimate partner violence and adult conflict. K.T. is now assaulting her loved ones, including her younger brother, A.T., with ASD and other special needs.
5. The Father has at least nine convictions for violent offences.
6. The Father is currently charged with assault the Older Child, S.P., on two occasions, as well as an assault charge related to the mother of his older children.
7. The Father has breached multiple criminal court orders.
8. The Father is not engaged actively with mental health support, DBT counselling or a psychiatrist for himself.
9. Placement with the Father and his Former Partner was attempted previously and resulted in the Older Child, S.P., being assaulted and the Middle Children’s previous removal from the Father by the TPS.
10. The Father is not currently engaged in parenting programs specifically for the Middle Children’s special needs, despite being referred to those programs. The Father is reportedly only now engaged in Mindful Father, which was previously recommended in September 2025, and he forgot to attend.
11. The Father’s Current Partner was his partner when the Middle Children were previously removed.
12. The Father’s Current Partner has her own serious mental health issues, including ADHD, anxiety and PTSD, for which she receives support from a psychiatrist, and also epilepsy that leads to unconsciousness and hospitalizations.

216The evidence and submissions made to court during this motion were troubling at times.

217Despite submitting that the role of the OCL included ensuring that relevant evidence was before the court, the OCL for the Middle Children did not ensure the Father’s extensive criminal records were before the court.

218The OCL for the Older Child and Mother’s counsel were the only lawyers to ensure the court had the available police records.

219It became clear that the CAST was not being transparent with the court about the Father’s extensive criminality, and his verified protection concern related to his sexual abuse of a child. The CAST did not ensure the Father’s criminal records were updated since 2022, despite further charges and convictions.

220The CAST is an agent of the State with considerable powers under the CYFSA. The disclosure obligation is comparable to that of Crown counsel in criminal proceedings, as set out in R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326 (S.C.C.), as Justice Gordon discussed in Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. E.O. (S.C.J.) at paragraph 21.

221Justice Gordon went on to explain in Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. E.O. (S.C.J.) at paragraph 22 (emphasis added):

22Disclosure does not simply involve delivery of case notes to parents’ counsel. The duty extends to disclosure to the court. After all, the Society and the court are guided by the paramount purpose in the C.F.S.A. The Society, as with Crown counsel in a criminal case, is not to focus on winning the case, but, rather, to seek a determination that is in the best interests of the child. Further, the court has the responsibility of making that determination and is not to simply “rubber stamp” decisions of the Society.

222The CAST also appeared to minimize the disclosures made by these vulnerable and abused Children, particularly S.P., who the CAST is mandated to protect. Counsel for the CAST submitted with respect to the current charges related to S.P. that S.P. “has made similar disclosure about other caregivers” and “there is a pattern and a context that I think also needs to be taken into account… when we are looking at the incident that happened with the Father”.

223This submission was inconsistent with the CAST’s evidence previously filed following S.P.’s and the Middle Children’s removal from the Father.

224The evidence on this motion did not support a finding that S.P. has a pattern of making similar disclosures or that she was unreliable. The CAST’s evidence was that S.P. had a visible injury, consistent with her allegations, reported by multiple third-party professionals. With respect to patterns and context, the TPS records indicate that the Father has a lengthy, unmitigated pattern of assaulting other people, particularly family members.

225Given the length of time the Children have been in society care previously, this matter is scheduled for the next child protection trial sittings.

PART EIGHT - ORDERS

226The following orders are made today:

[a] On a temporary basis, the Middle Children, K.T. and A.T., are placed in the care and custody of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto. [b] The Middle Children’s access to their parents and their siblings is at the discretion of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto. [c] The matter is adjourned to June 3, 2026 at 3:30 p.m. in-person. [d] Court administration is requested to email these reasons to counsel for the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, the parties, and counsel for the parties, as well as the OCL.